He’s my argument: Gays should not be allowed to marry, because this is not something that the government should have the power to determine eligibility. Should we have laws that say gays can go to church? be baptized? read? write? Drive? Chew their food? It shouldn’t be government’s role to determine who can do this, because it shouldn’t be within their power to determine who can’t.

Gays should not be allowed to marry, because this is not something that the government should have the power to determine eligibility

The government is involved in marriage, it’s a ceremony with legal implications and benefits sanctioned by the State.

Should we have laws that say gays can go to church? be baptized? read? write? Drive? Chew their food? It shouldn’t be government’s role to determine who can do this, because it shouldn’t be within their power to determine who can’t.

What a jumble mess of nonsense…the government shouldn’t be allowed to determine who can drive? Are you even thinking about what you are typing?

The libertarian argument mytie is making is stupid, but his current opposition – the ‘proud gay’ thumper – is even more nonsensical. I’m inclined to not give a damn about anyone who uses the “I’m a minority so do it or it’s discrimination” canard.

He’s my argument: Gays should not be allowed to marry, because this is not something that the government should have the power to determine eligibility. Should we have laws that say gays can go to church? be baptized? read? write? Drive? Chew their food? It shouldn’t be government’s role to determine who can do this, because it shouldn’t be within their power to determine who can’t.

So why can the government do that exact thing but with heterosexual marriages?

He’s my argument: Gays should not be allowed to marry, because this is not something that the government should have the power to determine eligibility. Should we have laws that say gays can go to church? be baptized? read? write? Drive? Chew their food? It shouldn’t be government’s role to determine who can do this, because it shouldn’t be within their power to determine who can’t.

So why can the government do that exact thing but with heterosexual marriages?

If I unnderstood his argument correctly throughout this thread it is his opinion – and I kind of find that a really sensible one – that the government should not be able to do that.
The

I dunno guys. I think MyTie is simply stating an opposition to the existence of State Marriages in their entirety. Which, fair enough by my reasoning.

While I hope I’m “understanding” this concept….at least a little,,,I guess we are at the “wall-of-separation” of church & state.

Churches will dictate who & what “marriage” is….
and the state will stay out of the whole thing entirely?

This means that there is NO legally contractual binding rights of the two ppl.
This means that if there is a “break up”, then the church has “authority” to assess asset distribution, children issues, etc?
Should one of the spouses tell the church to go fuck itself….what then?
Are we gonna allow kids to get the shit-end of the stick?
Won’t, ultimately, the state then be involved….by having to provide care for these children (and likely the mother so she can administer the care)?
Wouldn’t the church—whose “responsibility” (under TyTie’s directive) is the main method for marital unions—actually be the ones that should be in charge of the fallout of failed MARRIAGES?

I have to agree with Karma. If marriage falls entirely under the domain of the church, then dealing with the repurcussions of a failed marriage – divorce proceedings, making sure the kids are looked after, etc, must fall entirely within the remit of the church, as well.

If the church does not allow divorces, then it is the remit of the church likewise, to force the couple to stay together, using whatever measures it has at its disposal.

This means that there is NO legally contractual binding rights of the two ppl.
This means that if there is a “break up”, then the church has “authority” to assess asset distribution, children issues, etc?
Should one of the spouses tell the church to go fuck itself….what then?
Are we gonna allow kids to get the shit-end of the stick?
Won’t, ultimately, the state then be involved….by having to provide care for these children (and likely the mother so she can administer the care)?
Wouldn’t the church—whose “responsibility” (under TyTie’s directive) is the main method for marital unions—actually be the ones that should be in charge of the fallout of failed MARRIAGES?

Not beyond any legally recognized contract the two embark on. How does the Church get any kids? It would be no different then the State does now with unwedded parents and children. Assets would remain a question of their legal entanglements. I don’t see the Church doing anything beyond providing religious ceremony, as they already do. The government would remain confined to questions of contract, and children.

I have to agree with Karma. If marriage falls entirely under the domain of the church, then dealing with the repurcussions of a failed marriage – divorce proceedings, making sure the kids are looked after, etc, must fall entirely within the remit of the church, as well.

There would be no Divorce Proceedings, beyond any appropriate religous ceremony they choose to undergo voluntarily. Contractual breach would be a legal matter, as marriages already are. Kids would be a legal matter, as they already are. I don’t see the idea where the suggestion that a whole bunch of power would be conferred to the Church came from.

Ung, why would kids or divorce be a legal matter? No legal contract would be signed (obviously), so no legal contractual breech would take place. All three would become solely something the church takes care of internally, however they see fit. Whatever happens, the government does not get involved, as everything relating to the union is entirely within the purview of the church.

Ung, why would kids or divorce be a legal matter? No legal contract would be signed (obviously), so no legal contractual breech would take place. All three would become solely something the church takes care of internally, however they see fit. Whatever happens, the government does not get involved, as everything relating to the union is entirely within the purview of the church.

We are not quite touching base here. I don’t think any extension of the purview of the church was suggested. Kids would remain a legal matter as they always have been, procreation and marriage remain quite separate matters. Divorce itself would become as legally meaningless as Marriage, relevant only to the religious appetites of the involved parties. -I would assume many couples would undergo some contractual obligation, but that would remain separate from any marriage.

THEN…
aren’t we right back to:
The govt. handles the legality of contract of “marriage”,,,civil union.
Religion handles the morality of “marriage”,,,love union.
Govt. can’t deny Gays’ rights to have a contract of “marriage”.
Religions can or cannot grant love marriage as per each’s own covenants.
Ergo..SOME religions CAN “marry” Gays.
Sounds pretty simple to me,,,
isn’t THAT what we “liberals” have been saying all along….ad nauseum?

More or less yes I believe so. Albeit there are some slight changes in the specific diction and the inferences used. One would be the government renouncing the traditional nuclear family as a justification of the state. Which I think is long overdue. It would be also be renouncing the word marriage itself, the feelings associated with it, and any innate obligations inferred by the word.

THEN…
aren’t we right back to:
The govt. handles the legality of contract of “marriage”,,,civil union.
Religion handles the morality of “marriage”,,,love union.
Govt. can’t deny Gays’ rights to have a contract of “marriage”.
Religions can or cannot grant love marriage as per each’s own covenants.
Ergo..SOME religions CAN “marry” Gays.
Sounds pretty simple to me,,,
isn’t THAT what we “liberals” have been saying all along….ad nauseum?

More or less yes I believe so. Albeit there are some slight changes in the specific diction and the inferences used. One would be the government renouncing the traditional nuclear family as a justification of the state. Which I think is long overdue. It would be also be renouncing the word marriage itself, the feelings associated with it, and any innate obligations inferred by the word.

There ya go.ABOSLUTELY.
This is the “overhaul” that is needed.
It is (I think?) what MyTie is driving at.
There needs to be a serious, obvious, hard-line dichotomy between govt. & “religion” on the issue of civil unions & “marriage”.
Thanks Ung for the input….
I think it helps to make the issue much clearer.

Since MyTie usually does not gain much support, I have to confess my agreement with his statement: the government should not perform marriages. This is a non-discrimination action, as long as church marriages are not legally recognised (in other words, it means nothing to the government). The “immorality” that people claim about homosexuality really is of no relevance here.

IMO for same sex couples there shouldn’t be anything to complain about as long as they are treated legally the same as heterosexual couples. But if they want to change the whole meaning of marriage and make it so that government forces religions to marry them, not only this sounds like possible tyranny of minority but also very anti-secular.

To clarify what I meant about it being tyranny of the minority: if majority of people think marriage means an union between male and female, minority can’t just force that definition to change. Even if married couples get more legal benefits than same sex civil union couples the problem isn’t in the definition of marriage, it’s in the biased legislation. If and only if more than 50% of people define marriage being an union between 2 adults of any gender, I find the changing the legal definition of marriage to be fair. So, some kind of poll should be done about that.

Also, the other option could be what MyTie proposed, it just depends on whether you want marriage to be a legally recognized institution or not.

IMO for same sex couples there shouldn’t be anything to complain about as long as they are treated legally the same as heterosexual couples.

This is TRUE.
It is also the entire motive of the Gay “community”. Community is really a silly word to describe those of alternative sexual orientation….they don’t LIVE IN a “community”. And even “alternative” is silly. It almost makes it sound like a choice….that it “deviates” from the norm. I prefer the simple GLBT…not THE glbt’s. J a simple: GLBT’s postion on, etc.

But if they want to change the whole meaning of marriage and make it so that government forces religions to marry them, not only this sounds like possible tyranny of minority but also very anti-secular.

Here is where the conundrum comes in. It’s the intertwining of the words “marriage” & civil unions that is at the heart of it. If govt. continues to use the word “marriage” to LEGALLY describe civil unions (for both heteroes & GLBTes), then naturally the “whole meaning of marriage”WILLHAVE TO CHANGE.

BUT, ya’re waaaaay off in your thinking that GLBTes want the govt. to FORCE religions to “marry” them. The govt. issues a "legal contract of marriage. And then, basically all a relgion does is “bless” this union w/ its own “brand” of “marriage”.

SO, until we have a much clearer (dicotomy) understand of just what “marriage” is…we will have this shitty confusion going on.

To clarify what I meant about it being tyranny of the minority: if majority of people think marriage means an union between male and female, minority can’t just force that definition to change.

Well…yes & no,,,,sortta.
In a democracy….ya’d be right.BUT, our form of govt. is a republic…a strong set of “rules” is what dictates law. If any laws made by state or federal don’t agree w/ those rules (the Constitution), it doesn’t matter if it is a “minority of one” that protests a law. A “bad” law violates that citzens civil rights and must be struck down.

Even if married couples get more legal benefits than same sex civil union couples the problem isn’t in the definition of marriage, it’s in the biased legislation.

Yes.
Hence, there needs to be this equality by separation of what the govt. calls “unions” and what the church (or any other group) wants to call it. Religion doesn’t “OWN” the word….even though they claim to do so.

If and only if more than 50% of people define marriage being an union between 2 adults of any gender, I find the changing the legal definition of marriage to be fair. So, some kind of poll should be done about that.

See “democracy vs. republic” above.

Also, the other option could be what MyTie proposed, it just depends on whether you want marriage to be a legally recognized institution or not.

This comes down to creating this dicotomy of terms I’m talking about. I think it agrees with & satisfies MyTies’ position on the matter. I think it’s just that he’s not making it as “clear” as he’d like.

Hey, do you like games? So do we — that’s what makes Kongregate the best source of free games online. We have thousands upon thousands of free online games, from both one-man indies and large studios, rated and filtered so you can play the best of the best. Read more »